Nonprofits Call IOP Study Biased

Two Washington-based educational groups challenged last month an Institute of Politics (IOP) and Chronicle of Higher Education study that drew widespread government attention for its findings on student voter registration.

But the study’s author and an independent social science firm with close ties to Yale have called those criticisms unwarranted and said the study, which reports that a third of U.S. colleges stood in violation of a 1998 voter registration law, provides important public information.

The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and the National Association of Independent Colleges Universities (NAICU)—two nonprofit groups that promote student voter registration—said that the IOP study uses faulty methodology and relies on a small, nonrepresentative sample size.

“I am absolutely convinced that this is not a representative sample,” said AACRAO Executive Director Barmak Nassirian.

He said that schools that subscribe to the Chronicle of Higher Education were more likely to respond to the survey than nonsubscribers. The talked to 249 colleges nationwide, but Nassirian said that at least 706 should have been surveyed.

“We can disagree about normative issues,” Nassirian said. “But, about statistics, there should be no argument.”

But IOP Research Director David C. King, who assembled the report, maintained complete confidence in the survey’s methodology and the conclusions he drew from it.

“Mr. Nassirian is a lobbyist, not an analyst. The folks at NAICU are lobbyists, not analysts,” King wrote in an e-mail.

“Harvard, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Institute of Politics have no agenda and no turf to protect,” he added.

The report found that 25.8 percent of the 249 schools surveyed have never requested state voter registration materials to distribute to students, which violates a provision of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The law requires 4,200 American colleges and universities to distribute voter registration applications by mail to all eligible students.

After reviewing the study, Prometheus Research—a New Haven firm which is headed by a Yale professor—has also backed King’s survey methods, statistical analysis and conclusions, calling the criticisms by the NAICU and AACRAO “not warranted” in a press release.

“The survey...is the best publicly available information on the question of compliance with voter registration regulations on college campuses,” the press release said.

The IOP and Chronicle of Higher Education report was delivered to Congress on Sept. 13. The committee members responsible for analyzing the findings were “exceptionally enthusiastic about receiving the report, which was circulated to congressmen on both sides of the aisle,” King said.

With the November elections looming, the congressmen took special notice of King’s report.

“Few people care about elections more than elected officials,” King said.

Leaders of Harvard political student groups tended to side with King’s assessment of college compliance to the voter registration law.

“Professor King makes a good point that, if anything, his study understates compliance [with the 1998 law],” Harvard Democrats President Andy J. Frank ’05 said. “It seems like these associations are trying to change the subject.”

Lauren K. Truesdell ’06, a spokesperson for the Harvard Republican Club, said that while institutions of higher education should comply with the law, “ultimately, it is in the hands of the voters.”